Do followers of Pure Land meditate a lot or does practices consist of mostly chanting?

Pureland practice consists of a short service in reverence to Amitabha Buddha, the recitation of the shorter pureland sutra followed by chanting Namo Amitabha Buddha.

Along with meditation, observation of the precepts, and cultivation of the 6 perfections.

You are thinking of Jōdo Shinshū, which advocates a single-practice of strictly chanting, and has no vinaya or saṁgha.

I'm just covering what I practiced, I left out the precepts as I consider that a given with any form of Buddhism. In my own practice the recitation is a form of meditation, one focuses on"Namo Amitabha Buddha" and should distractions come to mind you focus on each phrase until the mind is quiet again. Though I've learned that most other Purelanders have stream lined the actual practice to make it shorter.

Pureland practice consists of a short service in reverence to Amitabha Buddha, the recitation of the shorter pureland sutra followed by chanting Namo Amitabha Buddha.

Along with meditation, observation of the precepts, and cultivation of the 6 perfections.

You are thinking of Jōdo Shinshū, which advocates a single-practice of strictly chanting, and has no vinaya or saṁgha.

I'm just covering what I practiced, I left out the precepts as I consider that a given with any form of Buddhism. In my own practice the recitation is a form of meditation, one focuses on"Namo Amitabha Buddha" and should distractions come to mind you focus on each phrase until the mind is quiet again. Though I've learned that most other Purelanders have stream lined the actual practice to make it shorter.

Apologies. I am a jaded internet person. I am too used to people using innocent descriptions like that to covertly attack. And I went into this exchange with the intent to "right wrongs". I tried to "seem" polite but you saw through that. I was in the wrong. My apologies.

世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke. 吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

There is nothing held back to be revealed later. So my view is perhaps Pureland is more of an attributed teaching rather than direct from the historical Buddha. In many Mahayana sutras such as the Lotus sutra, the Buddha quotes the name of the sutra over and over, but of course this would have been a discourse originally not a sutra, it would have been a sutra later. There is a lot of scriptures in Mahayana which I feel diverge so far from the Pali texts (which I'm enjoying reconnecting with btw!) that I feel Mahayana are missing out. The way the Buddha communicates in the Pali scriptures in comparison to the Mahayana scriptures is completely different. The Buddha is more human in Theravada and more god/avatar like in the Mahayana scriptures.

obviously the mahayana Suttas are a different device. Although I don't agree the core of PureLand rooted in faith is absent inside Theravada Suttas.

I freely admit I was one of those Buddhists caught up in Pureland as it seemed easier, however coming back to Theravada I wonder why anyone would practice anything else?

well that's the happiness of the convert which is a classic. And that's good; one should have faith in his own path.
However, also is good to consider if thousand years of history with holy people and eminent mahayana masters, all together can be the product of billion people more stupid than oneself. Good to keep a healthy humility and avoid the settlement of fundamentalists trends.

There is nothing held back to be revealed later. So my view is perhaps Pureland is more of an attributed teaching rather than direct from the historical Buddha. In many Mahayana sutras such as the Lotus sutra, the Buddha quotes the name of the sutra over and over, but of course this would have been a discourse originally not a sutra, it would have been a sutra later. There is a lot of scriptures in Mahayana which I feel diverge so far from the Pali texts (which I'm enjoying reconnecting with btw!) that I feel Mahayana are missing out. The way the Buddha communicates in the Pali scriptures in comparison to the Mahayana scriptures is completely different. The Buddha is more human in Theravada and more god/avatar like in the Mahayana scriptures.

obviously the mahayana Suttas are a different device. Although I don't agree the core of PureLand rooted in faith is absent inside Theravada Suttas.

I freely admit I was one of those Buddhists caught up in Pureland as it seemed easier, however coming back to Theravada I wonder why anyone would practice anything else?

well that's the happiness of the convert which is a classic. And that's good; one should have faith in his own path.
However, also is good to consider if thousand years of history with holy people and eminent mahayana masters, all together can be the product of billion people more stupid than oneself. Good to keep a healthy humility and avoid the settlement of fundamentalists trends.

I'm not quite sure whether you're being critical of my comment or not, but if I could explain a bit better. My comment and ultimate return to Theravada is based on the theory that in our world we had a Buddha, as compassionate as what is written about Amitabha. If there was an "easy" way to avoid all the dhukka we endure then "our" buddha would have taught this practice based on his own enlightenment. But he didn't and said before his paranibbana that there was no esoteric teachings nothing was held back. I have admitted my willingness to follow teachings which were easier to follow rather than study things hard to understand, but if anything coming from pureland teachings have given me vigor to learn the true dhamma. Just because a huge portion of Asia follow the pureland school or x amount of scholars through the ages have taught and expounded hidden meanings of pureland texts, does not give it authenticity. This was subject to debate in the 2nd buddhist council and again in the 4th. I admit i'm fickle but i'm learning.

The implication of Pure Land Buddhism to me is this: Was Gotama negligent by not creating his own pure land for his disciples?

I don't think so. In the Digha Nikaya which I'm reading currently, the Buddha make references to heavenly rebirths or rebirth in the realm of deva's. Now of course such rebirths are impermanent, but the emphasis is to end the rebirth in the human realm. I think of this journey through buddhism as climbing mount everest, you have to give it a few tries, take rests at different stops to finally reach the summit.

The commonality of pureland and pali canon :
Here is the 3 principal pureland sutra .

1. According to the Amitabha sutra , the peoples in pureland with it Buddha and retinue propagate & practice five spiritual faculties (pañca indriya), Five Strengths (pañca bala), Seven Factors of Enlightenment and Eight Right Path .
2. According to Amitāyurdhyāna-sūtra , practitioner training in meditation with regards to : Develop the samadhi on Sun dish , on water , ice and lapis lazuli etc , eventually resonate with the dharma sounds of suffering , emptiness , impermanent and not self . Further , develop meditation on earth(land) , trees etc etc .
Moreover , practice sila and six recollections / six anussati-ṭṭhānāni .
3. According to Sukhāvatī-vyūhaḥ-sūtra , the peoples in pureland will not descend to lower realms ever which is comparable to sotapanna .
The peoples in pureland will not cling to the body (as self) , equivalent to stream entry . The peoples in pureland practice the six parami , generosity , sila , khanti , right effort , jhana and wisdom .

Therefore , it seems sutra of Mahayana and sutta of Pali canon or Theravada (?) defined , has much in common / similarities .